Talk:The Belnord/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 06:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated at 2023-08-11 22:49:07 by Argenti Aertheri

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments: Looks good!

I’ve read up until the history section and my only comments so far are:

• Are the images here under copyright or did submitting them to the state make them public domain? They’re in b&w but there are a couple good ones.
  • The photographs are still under copyright. Works made by the federal government are automatically PD, but generally not works made by state governments (and particularly not those made for state governments). Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Darn, a couple of them were really nice ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• "The Belnord employed a full-time staff of 100 because it was so large." I don't know about that being in wiki-voice
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Perfect! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Could do with a citation clean up, most of #30-40 point to the same place.
  • This was done intentionally to provide precision, as the footnotes cite different pages from that source. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Its not really important for GA but it might interest you: Template:RP~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Epicgenius:

Thanks for the review Argenti Aertheri. I've responded to these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.